# Oliva Suing Sam Leccia (Creator of Nub)



## DLB (May 16, 2011)

So I was reading an article in Cigar Insider at my B&M today and saw this article that was also published on CigarAficianado.com.

Oliva Cigar Suing Sam Leccia | News & Features | Cigar Aficionado

I didn't know Sam Leccia left Oliva, but furthermore, I didn't know he was coming out with a new line. How does this all tie into Studio Tabac and what not?

His new line is called "Debut". Does anyone know when his creations are coming out - if at all?

Kind of interesting how the whole cigar world is being shaken up lately.


----------



## Hinson (May 11, 2011)

last i read its in limbo due to his non-compete with oliva, but i have seen " The Debut" in a review so there are some out there but not released yet.


----------



## Deuce Da Masta (Dec 4, 2006)

When he left oliva he had a clause stating he would not work for a competing company. Apparently starting your own line falls under this.


----------



## DLB (May 16, 2011)

Hinson said:


> last i read its in limbo due to his non-compete with oliva, but i have seen " The Debut" in a review so there are some out there but not released yet.


I wonder what kind of cigars he's making, shape, leaf, whatnot. I sure like the Nub. It would be cool to see what he comes up with next.



Deuce Da Masta said:


> When he left oliva he had a clause stating he would not work for a competing company. Apparently starting your own line falls under this.


Yeah, they wouldn't say how long his non-compete was, but they said it definitely wasn't for 6 months. I hate when creation is stifled by business. It'd be nice if he was coming out with something original and it could come to market without a hassle.


----------



## Hinson (May 11, 2011)

Double Robusto 5 x 60
Double Churchill 7 x 60
Figurado 6 1/4 x 52


----------



## Mr_mich (Sep 2, 2010)

Hinson said:


> Double Robusto 5 x 60
> Double Churchill 7 x 60
> Figurado 6 1/4 x 52


Now how the hell did you get your hands on that?


----------



## Hinson (May 11, 2011)

I am Sam. Just kidding, I read alot of news/review sites. Got it off one of them

edit: meaning I got the pic and info off a site. http://thecigarfeed.com/ is a great site for news.


----------



## chickenriceboo (May 20, 2010)

That's a pretty tacky-looking label. 

Also, it's funny cos debu (without the T) means fatass here in Japan.


----------



## fivespdcat (Nov 16, 2010)

I can't say that I'm all that excited to see any more 60 RG sticks... So to that end, this affects me in no way whatsoever, but it's still interesting.


----------



## wahoofever (Jul 5, 2011)

chickenriceboo said:


> That's a pretty tacky-looking label.


Well it would match up nicely with an Affliction shirt. 8)

I prefer more plain labels, let the product speak for itself.


----------



## DLB (May 16, 2011)

Hinson said:


> Double Robusto 5 x 60
> Double Churchill 7 x 60
> Figurado 6 1/4 x 52


That looks super tasty!



fivespdcat said:


> I can't say that I'm all that excited to see any more 60 RG sticks... So to that end, this affects me in no way whatsoever, but it's still interesting.


I'm the opposite....the thicker the better (that's what she said!)



wahoofever said:


> Well it would match up nicely with an Affliction shirt. 8)
> 
> I prefer more plain labels, let the product speak for itself.


I like the labels being a little more fancy, but I always peel em off anyway before I smoke em. It works at grabbing my eye on the shelf though.


----------



## CALIFORNIA KID (Nov 21, 2010)

This came up at the B&M yesterday and I was confused to all hell. Hopefully this thread will shed a little light on the situation.


----------



## thegoldenmackid (Mar 16, 2010)

CALIFORNIA KID said:


> This came up at the B&M yesterday and I was confused to all hell. Hopefully this thread will shed a little light on the situation.


What were you confused about?


----------



## smirak (Jul 9, 2011)

I kind of like the label. Eye catching. He had someone in the marketing dept of the new comapny do that for him. I think I like it becasue it doesn't look like every other label. You can spot a cohiba from a mile away becasue of it's label, but with some others, the labels tend to migrate together and you have to really look to tell the difference. However, I'm a noob, so I don't really know what I'm talking about anyway.

Kevin


----------



## JPinDC (Feb 14, 2008)

Sam has been posting pictures (including that one) and updates on his Facebook page guys.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Until we all see a copy of the "Non Compete" clause of Sam Leccia's exit contract with Oliva then this is all supposition. Why debate something none of us have inside knowledge of or indeed the real facts? I wish Sam the best in his endeavors, I truly do but none of us have the insight here to form an opinion. The lawyers will be the winners here methinks.:brick:


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Tashaz said:


> Until we all see a copy of the "Non Compete" clause of Sam Leccia's exit contract with Oliva then this is all supposition. Why debate something none of us have inside knowledge of or indeed the real facts? I wish Sam the best in his endeavors, I truly do but none of us have the insight here to form an opinion. The lawyers will be the winners here methinks.:brick:


Bingo!! I like how Warren cuts thru the BS and it's about as honest a reply as I've seen. This story is out there in the forums and people get all worked up over it like they have an inside connection as to what is really going on. The real story is that this is going to end up the way it was presented with the Lawyers posting a ton of billable hours off both sides. Non compete laws depending on the location tend to be very ambiguous and by the time this is all settled there will be a gag order placed for both sides to keep their mouths shut over what the terms will be. Nothing like a little Cigar Drama to keep people on the edge of their seats.:attention:


----------



## Perfecto Dave (Nov 24, 2009)

I used to be able to find those nubs for 2.75 - 3.00 each. Not so much anymore....must be paying the lawyers with the sales of them. :frown:


----------



## Hinson (May 11, 2011)

I didn't see anything being debated Warren, simply people chatting about a situation. I mean, is it so bad to discuss cigar news on a cigar forum? I didn't see a lot of wild accusations flying around this thread, merely repeating what has been said in other news forums.


----------



## kumanchu (Mar 16, 2011)

Cigary said:


> Bingo!! I like how Warren cuts thru the BS and it's about as honest a reply as I've seen. This story is out there in the forums and people get all worked up over it like they have an inside connection as to what is really going on. The real story is that this is going to end up the way it was presented with the Lawyers posting a ton of billable hours off both sides. Non compete laws depending on the location tend to be very ambiguous and by the time this is all settled there will be a gag order placed for both sides to keep their mouths shut over what the terms will be. Nothing like a little Cigar Drama to keep people on the edge of their seats.:attention:


I am unaware of any non-compete laws in any locale; and precedent regarding enforcement of non-compete clauses is pretty clear. but like both you and warren mentioned; everything is speculative without any facts.

However, I doubt the contract will be released. If anyone knows the court (as in which court in which state) this case is being filed in, the complaint will have enough details to determine what exactly the dispute is over. These filings are available to the public by request.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

kumanchu said:


> I am unaware of any non-compete laws in any locale; and precedent regarding enforcement of non-compete clauses is pretty clear. but like both you and warren mentioned; everything is speculative without any facts.
> 
> There are different types of clauses and verbage in a NCC and we won't be privy to what the exact language will be for obvious reason.
> 
> However, I doubt the contract will be released. If anyone knows the court (as in which court in which state) this case is being filed in, the complaint will have enough details to determine what exactly the dispute is over. These filings are available to the public by request.


Public filings can be searched but that doesn't mean all info is public. Usually the findings by the court will be private because they will instruct both sides to not talk about how it was settled...usually it's about who got more money.


----------



## kumanchu (Mar 16, 2011)

Cigary said:


> Public filings can be searched but that doesn't mean all info is public. Usually the findings by the court will be private because they will instruct both sides to not talk about how it was settled...usually it's about who got more money.


unless there are extraordinary circumstances (and the legal threshold for this is makes it very difficult) complaints are always available to the public.

The outcome of the case if settled out of court is a different story. Non-disclosure clauses are in settlement agreements, which are outside the purview of the court. The only time courts even see a settlement agreement is in divorce cases; or if a settlement agreement is the reason for the dispute. I don't know of a court that instructs parties to include such clauses, and such clauses are not a part of a judgement (which is also almost always publicly available).

back on topic: if anyone knows which court this case is being filed in, a request can be made for a copy of the complaint. at least then we'll know if it's actually happening, and it is likely that it will have some mention or even a copy/paste of the clause in dispute.


----------



## DLB (May 16, 2011)

The article on CigarAficianado.com was a little more abbreviated than the one in Cigar Insider. That's where the info about the NCC came from - not really speculation since it was quoted from José Oliva.

_"We are suing Sam for breach of contract, and we will be pursuing damages," José Oliva, the President of Oliva Cigar told Cigar Insider...

Oliva said the lawsuit is based around a non-compete clause in Leccia's contract. Although he wouldn't specify the length of Leccia's non-compete clause, he did say "it's certainly longer than the six months that Sam has not been with us."_


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

kumanchu said:


> unless there are extraordinary circumstances (and the legal threshold for this is makes it very difficult) complaints are always available to the public. :deadhorse:
> 
> The outcome of the case if settled out of court is a different story. Non-disclosure clauses are in settlement agreements, which are outside the purview of the court. The only time courts even see a settlement agreement is in divorce cases; or if a settlement agreement is the reason for the dispute. I don't know of a court that instructs parties to include such clauses, and such clauses are not a part of a judgement (which is also almost always publicly available)
> :deadhorse:
> back on topic: if anyone knows which court this case is being filed in, a request can be made for a copy of the complaint. at least then we'll know if it's actually happening, and it is likely that it will have some mention or even a copy/paste of the clause in dispute.


:emptybath:


----------



## nealw6971 (Jul 8, 2011)

Hinson said:


> Double Robusto 5 x 60
> Double Churchill 7 x 60
> Figurado 6 1/4 x 52


That is awesome... a Double Churchill with a 60 ring gauge... I definitely need to get ahold of a couple of those!

How was it, btw?


----------



## nealw6971 (Jul 8, 2011)

Tashaz said:


> Until we all see a copy of the "Non Compete" clause of Sam Leccia's exit contract with Oliva then this is all supposition. Why debate something none of us have inside knowledge of or indeed the real facts? I wish Sam the best in his endeavors, I truly do but none of us have the insight here to form an opinion. The lawyers will be the winners here methinks.:brick:


QFT, especially about the lawyers... they always seem to be the winners in this type of thing.


----------



## kumanchu (Mar 16, 2011)

nealw6971 said:


> QFT, especially about the lawyers... they always seem to be the winners in this type of thing.


i know of at least 7 state bars that now require members to drink tiger's blood once a month.


----------



## BMack (Dec 8, 2010)

First off, I'm not impressed with gigantic RG. 

Second, am I the only one that is left with a slightly bitter taste for Oliva for this lawsuit? It seems pretty low-class of them.


----------



## bazookajoe (Nov 2, 2006)

BMack said:


> ...Second, am I the only one that is left with a slightly bitter taste for Oliva for this lawsuit? It seems pretty low-class of them.


Why? If they have a legal agreement with him and feel he is not complying why is it low class to pursue that legally? They gave him his start and made a substantial investment in him. Would you consider it low class of him if you find out that he is breaching their agreement?


----------



## Cigar Noob (May 22, 2011)

BMack said:


> First off, I'm not impressed with gigantic RG.
> 
> Second, am I the only one that is left with a slightly bitter taste for Oliva for this lawsuit? It seems pretty low-class of them.


Not a size king myself either. The one Nub I had was the Connecticut and it was the torpedo so I didn't really have to deal with the excessive size. But, I wasn't a fan of the cigar and it certainly isn't nearly as good most of Oliva's other offerings IMO.

Personally I think it is lower class to sign a non-compete and then breach that contract compared to trying to enforce an agreement. No one is forced into signing them, but once you do, you must adhere to it. They haven't done anything ethically or legally wrong.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

bazookajoe said:


> Why? If they have a legal agreement with him and feel he is not complying why is it low class to pursue that legally? They gave him his start and made a substantial investment in him. Would you consider it low class of him if you find out that he is breaching their agreement?


Gonna have to agree with this sentiment from David...and I know that Sam is a pretty popular brother and has quite a standing in the Cigar World. We like our cigars and esp. those who are popular like Sam and it's easy to back something we like. We are not given enough info as to what is the real story and we may never know and to speculate only makes this situation worse. What happens is that the whole industry gets a black eye...nothing makes the Anti Smoking Lobby happier than to see all of this "infighting" and this lawsuit between Sam and Oliva is a dream come true for them. I'd just as soon see these two get their differences settled and everyone get back to business. As has been said the only winners here are the Lawyers...reminds me of that legendary joke...what do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start. ( for those who are lawyers among the brethren...just yankin your chain here )


----------



## StogieNinja (Jul 29, 2009)

Cigary said:


> ...reminds me of that legendary joke...what do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
> 
> A good start.


Hey, Terry! I knew you belonged in the WA State Bomb Squids! I mean, when Cigary says something, you _know _it's true!


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Aninjaforallseasons said:


> Hey, Terry! I knew you belonged in the WA State Bomb Squids! I mean, when Cigary says something, you _know _it's true!


 :lolat: Lol,,,that's it Derek..stir it up.


----------



## Cigar Noob (May 22, 2011)

Cigary said:


> ...nothing makes the Anti Smoking Lobby happier than to see all of this "infighting" and this lawsuit between Sam and Oliva is a dream come true for them.


I don't see the connection between something completely unrelated to smoking... and the "anti smoking lobby". :noidea:


----------



## BMack (Dec 8, 2010)

bazookajoe said:


> Why? If they have a legal agreement with him and feel he is not complying why is it low class to pursue that legally? They gave him his start and made a substantial investment in him. Would you consider it low class of him if you find out that he is breaching their agreement?


I just think it's a pretty silly thing to do. If he went to a competing company on the same level where trade secrets might be shared, absolutely... but starting a boutique brand? It isn't going to have a direct impact in the company's position, so I think it's pretty petty. Is it wrong? No. I just think it's kind of petty.


----------



## bazookajoe (Nov 2, 2006)

BMack said:


> I just think it's a pretty silly thing to do. If he went to a competing company on the same level where trade secrets might be shared, absolutely... but starting a boutique brand? It isn't going to have a direct impact in the company's position, so I think it's pretty petty. Is it wrong? No. I just think it's kind of petty.


If the support and backing he got working for Oliva is what enabled him to start his own company, expecting him to abide by his contract isn't petty IMO. And I read somewhere that Torano will be distributing his cigars which, if true, is putting cash in the pocket of a competitor.


----------



## Firedawg (Nov 8, 2010)

non compete clauses do not usually hold up well when contested. Hard to stop a man from making money as long as their isnt theft involved. Sounds like the split wasnt as nice as we thought when he left.


----------



## Dread (Oct 16, 2009)

Firedawg said:


> non compete clauses do not usually hold up well when contested. Hard to stop a man from making money as long as their isnt theft involved. Sounds like the split wasnt as nice as we thought when he left.


The food on the table argument seems to prevail 99% of the time in noncompete situations. Oliva should be happy that Sam gave their company something consumers can get excited about because nobody is jumping through hoops over O's and G's.


----------



## snagstangl (Aug 21, 2010)

Cigary said:


> Gonna have to agree with this sentiment from David...and I know that Sam is a pretty popular brother and has quite a standing in the Cigar World. We like our cigars and esp. those who are popular like Sam and it's easy to back something we like. We are not given enough info as to what is the real story and we may never know and to speculate only makes this situation worse. What happens is that the whole industry gets a black eye...nothing makes the Anti Smoking Lobby happier than to see all of this "infighting" and this lawsuit between Sam and Oliva is a dream come true for them. I'd just as soon see these two get their differences settled and everyone get back to business. As has been said the only winners here are the Lawyers...reminds me of that legendary joke...what do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
> 
> A good start. ( for those who are lawyers among the brethren...just yankin your chain here )


I am taking personal offense!!!! Sounds like intentional infliction of emotional distress:mad2:! I'm sure that my being slighted is somehow actionable.


----------



## usrower321 (Mar 27, 2011)

fivespdcat said:


> I can't say that I'm all that excited to see any more 60 RG sticks... So to that end, this affects me in no way whatsoever, but it's still interesting.


I will second that. The only way I can deal with a big RG is a torp. If it's not a torp I feel like I just came from the dentist when I finish smoking. Not enjoyable.


----------



## BMack (Dec 8, 2010)

bazookajoe said:


> If the support and backing he got working for Oliva is what enabled him to start his own company, expecting him to abide by his contract isn't petty IMO. And I read somewhere that Torano will be distributing his cigars which, if true, is putting cash in the pocket of a competitor.


I disagree. I think it is petty and distribution is far from being something they should be worried about. Now if this new line was made using an Oliva blend, using partners Oliva used that had no previous relationship with Torano, then I'm all for a lawsuit. That's not the case though.

Pretend it's a small Mom & Pop hardware store. They have an employee that worked there and after a while he saved up enough money to go out on his own and start a hardware store in the next town over... You think the original hardware store would sue him or appreciate what he did for them and wish him the best?

I'm not saying that Oliva isn't well within their rights. What I'm saying is that I believe that they're being petty and it would be more respectable if they just wished him the best and moved on.

We probably aren't going to agree here and that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion.


----------



## bazookajoe (Nov 2, 2006)

BMack said:


> ...Now if this new line was made using an Oliva blend, using partners Oliva used that had no previous relationship with Torano, then I'm all for a lawsuit. That's not the case though....


How do you know this?


----------



## BMack (Dec 8, 2010)

Ok fine, it is exactly what is going on and you're right. I'm not going to keep arguing with you.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

snagstangl said:


> I am taking personal offense!!!! Sounds like intentional infliction of emotional distress:mad2:! I'm sure that my being slighted is somehow actionable.


Ahhh....you'll get over it. You'll find a new cigar and it will take your mind off all that pent up emotional distress...either that or find a valium or xanax. I've been slighted so many times I actually enjoy it now.:roll:


----------



## kumanchu (Mar 16, 2011)

Dread said:


> The food on the table argument seems to prevail 99% of the time in noncompete situations. Oliva should be happy that Sam gave their company something consumers can get excited about because nobody is jumping through hoops over O's and G's.


I'd disagree. Because precedent is so clear regarding non-compete clauses of contracts; unless Oliva's lawyer really cocked up he's probably got a good case.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Sam keeps making cigars, but has to pay Oliva a cut or a large upfront lump sum.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

bazookajoe said:


> How do you know this?


Exactly the point of my ealier post. I'm all for sharing the facts & the news but just like most "news" subjects the discussion quickly degenerates into debate based on unfounded rumour & supposition. :nod:

BTW Gary, since you enjoy it I'll say "Bastage" to you. Hahahahaaaaa... J/K mate. :roll:


----------



## thegoldenmackid (Mar 16, 2010)

I originally was not a fan of the Tashaz, "let's have no discussion until we know the facts" theory, but after three or so pages, he might have been onto something.

The narrative has slowly come out in various places, but there's a lot of info that isn't suppressed in court rooms that can help explain what's going on. Although, truth be told, no one outside of the courtrooms can possibly know the full stories.

From what I know, don't expect this to end anytime soon.

This is the lesser (and I mean far lesser) in terms of potential impact of the two publicized inner industry lawsuits going on right now, and the other one has far more documentation.

Sam is not the only person with a non-compete, nor is he the only one that isn't choosing to adhere to it; he might be the most brazen about it though.

_oh, the plurals mean something. _


----------



## Rays98GoVols (Sep 22, 2008)

wahoofever said:


> Well it would match up nicely with an Affliction shirt. 8)
> 
> I prefer more plain labels, let the product speak for itself.


I also want a great Cigar. But that being said, there is nothing wrong with a beautiful label (My Father comes to mind).


----------



## Rays98GoVols (Sep 22, 2008)

fivespdcat said:


> I can't say that I'm all that excited to see any more 60 RG sticks... So to that end, this affects me in no way whatsoever, but it's still interesting.


I Love big ol Cigars! 60 rg is great. Actuually I smoke nothing smaller than a Churchill (47-49). But prefer the 52-56 range with an occasional 60 thrown in.

But you know what??? We are both right. Whatever you like, as long as it is a good Cigar, size doesn't matter...


----------



## Rays98GoVols (Sep 22, 2008)

kumanchu said:


> I'd disagree. Because precedent is so clear regarding non-compete clauses of contracts; unless Oliva's lawyer really cocked up he's probably got a good case.
> 
> If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Sam keeps making cigars, but has to pay Oliva a cut or a large upfront lump sum.


It may matter by state. In Illinois all I have ever seen with Non-Compete contracts is: They fight in court for a year or two, and it is thrown out as a food on the table matter...so only the Lawyers win. The Company pays their Lawyers and the worker who left, evertho they technically won, has to pay their Lawyers also.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Tashaz said:


> Exactly the point of my ealier post. I'm all for sharing the facts & the news but just like most "news" subjects the discussion quickly degenerates into debate based on unfounded rumour & supposition. :nod:
> 
> BTW Gary, since you enjoy it I'll say "Bastage" to you. Hahahahaaaaa... J/K mate. :roll:


I'm slowly coming around to your way of thinking Warren...an old dog can learn new tricks. :whoo:


----------



## Firedawg (Nov 8, 2010)

the whole issue here is that Warren might have been right. WTF is this world coming too when Warren is right? Were all screwed! 
:yield::grouphug:


----------



## Hinson (May 11, 2011)

disregard


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

Have a look at Charlie's website (thegoldenmackid), that is how reporting of these events should be done. Unbiased & comments reported from both sides. Nice work Charlie. :rockon:


----------



## JPinDC (Feb 14, 2008)

Tashaz said:


> Have a look at Charlie's website (thegoldenmackid), that is how reporting of these events should be done. Unbiased & comments reported from both sides. Nice work Charlie. :rockon:


what is the website?


----------



## bigslowrock (May 9, 2010)

cigarfeed


----------



## ktblunden (Oct 7, 2010)

thegoldenmackid said:


> This is the lesser (and I mean far lesser) in terms of potential impact of the two publicized inner industry lawsuits going on right now, and the other one has far more documentation.


The "we protest the use of a fleur de lis in a logo regardless of the fact that it's a symbol that has been used throughout history" lawsuit? Much bigger impact.


----------



## the_brain (May 1, 2011)

Olivia's announcement that they were pursuing litigation against Sam stated that a "five-year non-compete" was in the contract. 

As was stated before these things are rarely enforceable, especially with this long a term. (For instance in my state it can not be more then 12 months unless they are paying you in your non-compete time.)


----------



## nealw6971 (Jul 8, 2011)

tke743 said:


> Olivia's announcement that they were pursuing litigation against Sam stated that a "five-year non-compete" was in the contract.
> 
> As was stated before these things are rarely enforceable, especially with this long a term. (For instance in my state it can not be more then 12 months unless they are paying you in your non-compete time.)


I have absolutely no legal background, but it seems to me that a non-compete can't take away a person's livelihood unless there was some type of adequate compensation.

Obviously we're all speculating, and I wish that both parties could come to some sort of terms on this because I like Oliva cigars and Sam seems like a cool guy (he accepted my friend request on Facebook and even chatted with me in IM and seemed very down to earth) and I really want to try his new cigars... sheesh, can't we all just get along???


----------



## 54 Conqueror (Jun 17, 2011)

Sam Leccia Banned From 2011 IPCPR Trade Show

His statement is as follows,



I am saddened to announce that my Debut is on hold. I have been barred from attending the Cigar Show by court order. I will however, be vigorously pursuing Oliva’s failure to fulfill it’s contractual obligations to me and my family. I have faith in the legal system and I will see you all as soon as possible. Thank You all, from the bottom of my heart, for your continued support.


Sounds like some court somewhere is at least looking at the non-compete.


----------



## dmgizzo (Dec 13, 2010)

Cigar Noob said:


> No one is forced into signing them, but once you do, you must adhere to it. They haven't done anything ethically or legally wrong.


Not trying to dicker, but actually this is not 100% true. Lots of companies *do* force you to sign a non-compete. If you refuse you are fired or your job gets mysteriously eliminated.

I do not have a dog in the fight , just saying don't assume everyone signs these things without concern or reservations.


----------



## User Name (Feb 11, 2011)

Was he banned from attending the show? Or banned from debuting his product at the show?

Being banned from the show, even as an attendee, that seems pretty serious.

yay for non-compete not being enforceable in California!


----------



## swingerofbirches (Jan 12, 2010)

Charlie's updated post has that info ... apparently Sam was "barred from attending".

Jose Oliva's official response to all of the chatter is posted as well ...


----------



## Cigar Noob (May 22, 2011)

dmgizzo said:


> Not trying to dicker, but actually this is not 100% true. Lots of companies *do* force you to sign a non-compete. If you refuse you are fired or your job gets mysteriously eliminated.
> 
> I do not have a dog in the fight , just saying don't assume everyone signs these things without concern or reservations.


You are free to leave the company. Therefore, you aren't forced. The definition of "forced" is not being allowed to not do it. He had plenty of freedom to leave the employer if he didn't like the terms.


----------



## Deuce Da Masta (Dec 4, 2006)

I actually am a fan of sams work and enjoy his cigars. I hope this gets resolved so i can try his new work.


----------



## nealw6971 (Jul 8, 2011)

Deuce Da Masta said:


> I actually am a fan of sams work and enjoy his cigars. I hope this gets resolved so i can try his new work.


QFT x 1000

I am a recent convert to the Nub Religion.


----------



## dmgizzo (Dec 13, 2010)

Cigar Noob said:


> You are free to leave the company. Therefore, you aren't forced. The definition of "forced" is not being allowed to not do it. He had plenty of freedom to leave the employer if he didn't like the terms.


Matter of perspective for sure, of course you are free to leave the company, all of us always are. That wasn't my point, but I'm not looking to get into an e-peen contest either.

It will be interesting once we hear more of the facts and see how this plays out.

op2:


----------

